The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-03
THE TWO OPINIONS.

The greater part Of Judge Greshaln's opin-
ion in respect to the subject of federal juris-
diction over frauds at elections is expended in
reaching proposition which Judge Woods
conceded and assumed to be established, to
the effect that the enactments of Congress
and the jurisdiction of the federal courts ex-
tend only to matters which may affect the
election of Representative in Congress, and
not to acts having exclusive reference to the
election of State or county officers.
Not differing upon this fundamental rule,
which is no new deliverance or discovery, as
it had been already distinctly declared by the
federal Supreme Court the judges are opposed
upon the question whether or not the spolia-
ton of tally-sheets, in respect to county or
State officers alone does or may affect the
election OF Congressman.
This seems to be question as much ormore
of fact as of law, and as both opinions upon
it are pointed and short, we republish them
together.
Judge Gresham says:
ut remains to be considered whether the acts
charged in the affidavit might naturally and rea-
| sonaby and within the meaning of the statute,
| affect the election of a Representative in Con-
| gress aud it is said that they might do so by
destroying the value of the tally papers as evil
| dence before the board of canvassers or in any
| contest of the election OF such Representatives.
! 1t is claimed that, account of erasures and
| changes apparent on the tally papers in the vote
| for coroner and criminal judge it might be wholly
| rejected or accepted only upon evidence aliunde
hat vet n in
| which there are no erasures or changes, was
correctly stated and that the person elected as
such Representative might thereby lose, be
! pct to great trouble and expense in proving his
| election. The legal presumption as to such eras.
! ures and changes Is that they were made before
the paper was signed and the presumption is
not to be overthrow by mere suspicion. But if
| there is reason to believe that the erasures and
| changes in the statements of the vote for coro-
| ner and criminal judge were fraudulenty made
| it is not sufficient reason for decln-
| ing to accept the statements of the
| votes for other officers in which there
are erasures or changes. tally paper
| contains separate statement Of the votes cast
for each candidate for every Office, and, although
it is one in FORM it is several in it's and
| character. Tbs choice of majority of the
votes in county, or district, or State, as to
other Offices, about which there is no reasonable
| question or doubt, ought not to be reversed by
rejection of the whole tally papers and the vote
| evidenced thereby, or held in allowance, because
| there is some question or doubt as to the vote
for coroner or criminal judge. 1t would be un-
| reasonable to presume, If the election Of Gov
ernor hinged upon the vote of any of the pre-
! cncts named in the affidavit, that any honest
and intelligent man or body of men would re-
ject its vote and give the Office to the candidate
of the minority of the voters Of the State, ac-
count of these erasures and changes, and it
would be impossible to justify such an act 1t
was to prevent such acts of ignorance perver-
sity that the Legislature of Indiana inserted the
following sections IN the statute governing cleo
tons:
mo tallv-Daper poil.book. or certificate returned
from election by the board of Judges thereof shall
be rejected for want of form nor for lack of being
strictly in accordance with the directions herein
and such board of canvassers shall in case reject
the returns from any precinctf the be certified
by the board of election of that precnct required
by law and presented to them by the inspector
| of the judges of said board.
| mo commission shall be withheld by the Governor
account of any defect nformality in the return
Of any election to the Office of the Secretary of State
if it can with reasonable certainty, be ascerained
from such returns what Office is intended, ard who is
entitled to such commission.
1.-The acts of the defendants had exclusive ref
erence to the election of State and county off
cers'-and for such acts they are not and cannot
be made 'amenable to federal jurisdiction be-
cause others might improperly or wrongfuy
make them pretext for refusing to count the
vote for Representatives. in Congress-"
Judge Woods, after quoting from the charge
to the jury in the Mackin case, wherein
Judge Blodgett said:
s'When the certificates of the result of an
election for member of Congress, or any other
Office, for that matter, is altered in any materla
particular such certificate is legally destroyed
and is no longer evidence of what it originally
stated 1t is no longer the document which the
judges and clerks signed. but it is diferen,
document aud it makes q different statement
Says:
s'Now, il it is to be considered as hera stated
that ii certificate or tally-sheet is altered II
auy material particular it is legally destroyed
and il no longer evidence Of what it original,